Because Roddenberry, Desilu and NBC were making Trek out of the goodness of their heart. It seems folks are whipping out their rosé-tinted nostalgia glasses again and forget how much Roddenberry borrowed from other TV and films at the time.

Click to expand...

Even if we assume that this is my "motivation," it does nothing to repudiate the claims I make in that post. The Tu Quoque argument does not deny an accusation, it just asserts that the accuser is also guilty of said accusation.
Old Trek might be exactly like NuTrek, but this would not repudiate my claim.

The only way in which my reasoning would not gain traction would be if the Eco-Darwinistic warrant were true of any and all artworks. That is, if it were a universal truism that artworks are simply made to make money, that that is their purpose, then there would be no room for alternatives. It would make no sense to accuse nuTrek of something of which all artistic producers are guilty (by necessity).

When we globalize this to an argument making a universal statement about artistic production, however, it falls under the weight of it's lazy Machiavellian assumptions:
Premise: Artistic products that don't make money do not survive.

Premise: Star Trek is an artistic product (a commodity).

Conclusion: Money is the only relevant motive in the production of Star Trek.

The conclusion simply does not follow from the premises. The conclusion fails to note that artistic products can be made with additional motives and that, therefore, there is a difference between an artwork with a message that is designed to make money and a (nominal) artwork which only exists to make money.

Even if this were a valid syllogism, the premises are questionable, at best. It assumes that "survival" (e.g., the endless regurgitation of franchises and toys and books and games) is the only relevant, or the paramount, motive for an artwork. If professional life was "all about the money" and only about money, only a fool would teach. Considering the average pay of any creative artist (musicians, actors, writers, etc.), only a fool would go into the creative expression business if it were because, first and foremost, they wanted to make money.

Writers, generally, want to tell good stories. They want to do something meaningful. They want to be paid for it, but they're aren't just randomly associating pounding keys on their keyboard with paychecks.

Art tends to suffers when profit is the only motive in sight. You tend to play it safe. You rely on hacks and play doctors to regurgitate what has already been done. Hollywood's case of sequelitus and rebootitus is evidence of this.

Everyone in the business is looking to get paid. But art isn't just a business. It's culture, it's philosophy, it's personal expression, it's human experience. Reducing art to business under the Darwinistic warrant (i.e., that which survives earns profits) does violence to the substance of art.

TOS Star Trek, on occasion, took risks. It featured an interracial kiss (this episode was not shown in some markets). It featured a Russian crew member. It snuck culturally relevant moral lessons past the censors. It was goofy, but it was also meaningful. And even when they failed (and they failed on several occasions), they were at least trying to do more than simply collect a check. Sure, there were meaningless hack episodes and creative choices made purely in the pursuit of profit. But what cheesey old Star Trek proves (TNG is a better example of old Star Trek since it was not cancelled after three seasons due to low ratings) is that Star Trek can have a message and still survive (i.e., make money).

I don't think that nuTrek has any such ambitions. It is entertaining and fun and it has cool action sequences. It plays dress-up with mom and dad's old clothes, but it's only playing with the form, not the substance. They're content to pick the low hanging fruit of pop cultural memory and package it as retro-action adventure. They're doing a pretty good job of it too! Some us simply lament that nuTrek has a lot more "empty calories" than the old.

Click to expand...

Oh please, even TOS was far from artistic. It was a western set in space. And every subsequent movie and series only wanted to milk it more.

Making this show was never altruistic. Roddenberry may have genuinely liked his work...but he didn't do it for free. Artists want to make a living from their work. Just because these movies fit our time period (just like all of the other movies and series fit theirs) doesn't make them inferior or only out to "sucker the newbies into liking it because they don't know any better". New fans are just as important as old fans, and making a movie that will have mass appeal doesn't diminish it or the people who enjoy it.

Why did they bother with the original Trek crew in these new movies? They could have easily created a new crew. There are only a couple of characters that act like their original counterpart from the original TV series. Spock stayed away from Christine Chapel in the original because he thought it was inappropriate. But this new Spock is all over Uhura. Kirk is promoted from "Cadet who is about to get expelled" to First Officer - completely bypassing Kirk ever serving on the Farragut. Karl Urban's got the McCoy-isms down pretty good. But Scotty is just a guy with an accent - even though Simon Pegg is pretty funny. So is Chekov - just an accent. And it's almost racist that they got a Chinese actor to play the part that a Japanese actor played on the TV show. Did I miss anybody?

They could have at least had Pine do a Shatner imitation.

I guess if it brings in the big bucks at the theater...

/rant

Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

Haven't we been over this a thousand times? This Star trek is not for you. I rarely have seen anybody get it this wrong...

Well, keep in mind it is an alternate reality. I don't know. I guess people thought having the same old crew would make it more appealing even though they did change it a bit. Besides, Gene Roddenberry actually wanted there to someday be a movie or a show about them before they were... them. I honestly don't think they did a horrible job. The only thing wrong for me is that it's lost most of it's "Star Trek". It's kind of just a big action movie with the idea of Star Trek tossed in the background. But I'm not complaining too much because I'm just happy Star Trek is back at all. I mean who knows when it'll all be over. Obviously the legacy will always live on but it's great to have Star Trek happening now. Especially for me who never got to watch any of the series as they came out.

Making this show was never altruistic. Roddenberry may have genuinely liked his work...but he didn't do it for free. Artists want to make a living from their work.

Click to expand...

Did you even read my post? I've already noted that artists want to get paid. That writers want to put food on the table is not exclusive to a motive to express, critique, philosophize, jest, subvert, reframe, etc.Is it such a scandal for you to think that artists also have artistic motivations? Are you that jaded?

What does this even mean?Sunshine, Gattaca, Children of Men, District 9, Moon, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - these are all films "of our time period." That Transformers is also of our time does not mean that the horizon of expectation for science fiction films reduces to the ambition of noisy actioners.

Are they? In what sense? Not a lot of Glenn Miller fans these days, but would we be doing Glenn Miller's music any favors by converting into dubstep?

How far can you alter the original before it is no longer substantively what it was (Ship of Theseus)? How far can you push things before you lose the soul of the original?

If the only goal is to keep the brand name alive, then who cares? Suppose, for example, America became a country where there was no free speech, no voting for officials, no prosperity, and which oppressed the rest of the world a la Germany in the early 20th century. Would "America" still be something worth fighting for? Would it matter that we kept the name alive if we lost all the substance? Or is there something that matters more than profit, market share, and brand recognition?

and making a movie that will have mass appeal doesn't diminish it or the people who enjoy it.

Click to expand...

But this does not mean that mass-appeal is all we can aspire to.

Some of us feel like Pike in Trek '09. We would simply like to encourage nuTrek to aspire to be a little more.
Your predecessors commanded the franchise for four decades. They inspired people and promoted dialogue on sensitive issues. They dare you to do better.

Star Trek Into Darkness had the balls to take unpopular positions on U.S. actions and all people can do is scream it isn't enough.

Click to expand...

Unpopular position?

Everyone supports the troops; fewer and fewer people support the wars. Now that the U.S. has been at war for 12 years and we know that there were no WMDs, it's pretty easy to look back with hindsight and say that preemptive war is not such a good idea. The message would have been courageous in 2002 when everyone in America was spoiling for the fight, not in 2013 when we've already had a belly full.

It doesn't take "balls" to take the stand eleven years too late.

The position taken on U.S. foreign policy in the film is muddled. Admiral Marcus is a renegade military man, so this does not really criticize legitimate foreign policy of the United States. That admirals should not take it upon themselves to start their own wars is a no-brainer even in a post 9-11 world. John Harrison is a terrorist which only plays into the "War on Terror" angle.

Plenty of other films have cashed in on 9-11 iconography (e.g., Cloverfield, War of the Worlds), so this isn't new ground either.

And I am fairly convinced that to a certain group there is no criticism of the new films, no matter how patiently reasoned it may be, which will be tolerated.

Click to expand...

Bull. Shit.

I've been critical of the flaws in both Abrams films. But I also know that Star Trek has never been this scientifically accurate, morally righteous creation some folks seem to remember it being. It was incredibly flawed, but fun. The Abrams films are incredibly flawed, but fun.

It is my considered opinion that casting actors according to their ethnicity is the worst part of Affirmative Action. Not casting the best actor for a role because he is not the right race is the definition of racism.

Disagree if you like, but it won't change my opinion.

Click to expand...

Um okay, but if the character you're casting is supposed to be black or Asian or whatever, then wouldn't someone who is black or Asian or whatever be the best actor for a role?

Look, in some cases, yes, race is trivial to a character and anyone of any ethnicity can be cast. Others, race is essential. If you were doing a Martin Luther King biopic, you wouldn't cast a white guy as Martin Luther King, would you?

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's the 23rd or 24th century, take your pick. People of different ethic backgrounds intermarry (or interbreed if you prefer) and the differences in race become less apparent over time. I know "black" people who are light skinned with light colored eyes. I know Native Americans with blond hair and blue eyes.

Don't believe me? Look around.

To restrict casting to ethnic stereotypes for a color blind future is not only narrowminded, it's ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Oh, I think I see what you're saying now. And to an extent I do agree, it cna be narrowminded. But I also don't think wanting an actor of a specific ethnicity is necessarily prejudiced. It all depends on circumstances and how its handled.

And I am fairly convinced that to a certain group there is no criticism of the new films, no matter how patiently reasoned it may be, which will be tolerated.

Click to expand...

Bull. Shit.

Click to expand...

Bracketing for the moment, your spotless record of "calling like it is," I would suggest that our discussions are, in fact, terribly polarized with both sides taking offense with little provocation and rallying around their preferred tribes. If you think only one side is guilty of this simply because you think that YOU are even handed is to miss the point.

But I also know that Star Trek has never been this scientifically accurate, morally righteous creation some folks seem to remember it being. It was incredibly flawed, but fun. The Abrams films are incredibly flawed, but fun.

Click to expand...

So what's wrong with asking for less flaws with the fun?

Flawed as Trek is, it occasionally has a message. Sometimes that message is heavy handed and pedantic (TNG anyone?), but it has a moral message, a more or less hopefully image of humanity, and a curiosity about the universe (i.e., What if this were true?).

Are they? In what sense? Not a lot of Glenn Miller fans these days, but would we be doing Glenn Miller's music any favors by converting into dubstep?

How far can you alter the original before it is no longer substantively what it was (Ship of Theseus)? How far can you push things before you lose the soul of the original?

Click to expand...

Why does everything have to pander to old fans? Just because I've liked Star Trek longer than someone else doesn't mean that my opinion is the only one that matters. And I didn't like TOS or most of the movies. Never have. The acting is wooden and the stories are, for the most part, bad. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the age of the show, because the original Twilight Zone is one of the best shows I've ever seen. I really enjoyed TNG and DS9, though. And I like this reboot. But I don't demand that everyone like exactly what I like, because what fun would that be? But I respect everyone's opinion on it and I won't insult them simply because they are new to it.

Why does everything have to pander to old fans? Just because I've liked Star Trek longer than someone else doesn't mean that my opinion is the only one that matters. And I didn't like TOS or most of the movies. Never have. The acting is wooden and the stories are, for the most part, bad. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the age of the show, because the original Twilight Zone is one of the best shows I've ever seen. I really enjoyed TNG and DS9, though. And I like this reboot. But I don't demand that everyone like exactly what I like, because what fun would that be? But I respect everyone's opinion on it and I won't insult them simply because they are new to it.

Click to expand...

No insult is intended, but the function of any criticism or "suggestion for improvement" involves an implicit accusation.

Examples:

RELIGION: "Your beliefs are wrong and you should turn to my deity to seek forgiveness for your sins."

HIGHER EDUCATION: "You won't be as respectable, be as smart, or get the job you want without our service. As it stands, you're level of education is inadequate."

SHAMPOO: "Yuck, get rid of that dandruff!"

You don't like TOS and say that it was bad. The acting was, so you say, wooden and it is terrible in comparison to other shows like the Twilight Zone. Should the TOS fan complain about being insulted or get a thicker skin and realize that people have different opinions. I mean, I could choose to be insulted by your claim that TOS stories were simply bad, but you're entitled to your opinion even if it is offensive to my own. Why aren't critics of NuTrek entitled to their opinions?

Why does everything have to pander to old fans? Just because I've liked Star Trek longer than someone else doesn't mean that my opinion is the only one that matters. And I didn't like TOS or most of the movies. Never have. The acting is wooden and the stories are, for the most part, bad. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the age of the show, because the original Twilight Zone is one of the best shows I've ever seen. I really enjoyed TNG and DS9, though. And I like this reboot. But I don't demand that everyone like exactly what I like, because what fun would that be? But I respect everyone's opinion on it and I won't insult them simply because they are new to it.

Click to expand...

No insult is intended, but the function of any criticism or "suggestion for improvement" involves an implicit accusation.

Examples:

RELIGION: "Your beliefs are wrong and you should turn to my deity to seek forgiveness for your sins."

HIGHER EDUCATION: "You won't be as respectable, be as smart, or get the job you want without our service. As it stands, you're level of education is inadequate."

SHAMPOO: "Yuck, get rid of that dandruff!"

You don't like TOS and say that it was bad. The acting was, so you say, wooden and it is terrible in comparison to other shows like the Twilight Zone. Should the TOS fan complain about being insulted or get a thicker skin and realize that people have different opinions. I mean, I could choose to be insulted by your claim that TOS stories were simply bad, but you're entitled to your opinion even if it is offensive to my own. Why aren't critics of NuTrek entitled to their opinions?

Click to expand...

I have no problem with people not liking the new Star Trek. I just think that that people are insulting new fans for liking it instead of the actual movie itself. "Pandering to newbies" is a phrase like that. I disliked the new version of Pride and Prejudice with Keira Knightly...but I didn't dislike the people who did like it. I figured that it would be a great way to get people to read the book and maybe even watch other adaptations because they now had an interest that I shared.

I have been berated for being a "bandwagon fan" because I "only" became a fan of hockey 10 years ago...which just happened to be when I moved to a part of the country where people actually played the sport, as opposed to where I grew up. It's the same with Star Trek. Many kids born from the 90's on have not seen Trek in its prime, and more than likely not be fans growing up. However, my nephews liked the movies even though they will probably never enjoy TOS. The update made it fresh and accessible for them- something that none of the other series ever did.

I don't think you have to like movie, but I don't think it's fair to criticize people who are new to it for liking it, is my point.